Are three-person designer babies ethical?

The Hastings Center asks how should parents determine what sort of child they have?

March 17, 2014

(credit: iStock)

From genetic and genomic testing to new techniques in human assisted reproduction, various technologies are providing parents with more of a say about the children they have and “stirring the pot of designer baby concerns,” writes Thomas H. Murray, President Emeritus of The Hastings Center, in a commentary in Science.

Murray calls for a national conversation about how much discretion would-be parents should have. “Preventing a lethal disease is one thing; choosing the traits we desire is quite another,” he writes.

He discusses public hearings two weeks ago by the FDA to consider whether to permit human testing of a new method of assisted reproduction — mitochondrial manipulation — that would prevent the transmission of certain rare diseases and perhaps address some causes of female infertility. At issue is the safety of the technology, as well as its ethical implications.

Mitochondrial manipulation creates an embryo with the nuclear DNA from the prospective mother and father (which contains most of the genetic material) and the mitochondrial DNA (containing 37 genes) from a donor without mitochondrial defects. Among the ethical concerns is that daughters produced by this procedure could pass down the mitochondrial DNA to their children. “Up to now, the United States has not allowed such genetic changes across generations,” Murray writes.

A simmering controversy

He says that the FDA’s discussion is the latest development that “tapped into a simmering controversy over what it means to have a child in an era of increasing convergence among genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies.” Those technologies include preimplantation genetic diagnosis (genetic analysis of embryos before implantation via in vitro fertilization) and prenatal screening to detect health problems in the fetus, including the prospects of a blood test of a pregnant woman to screen fetal DNA in her blood.

“Of all the possible choices prospective parents might make, sex selection for non-medical purposes has prompted the strongest policy response, “Murray writes. “It is prohibited in at least 36 countries, but not in the United States.” He notes that “conflicts over the legal and moral status of embryos and fetuses have discouraged American legislators from proposing sensible regulations, lest they be drawn in to the abortion debate.”

The absence of federal legislation has left the regulation of sex selection up to professional societies. But they have different guidelines, reflecting “clashing ethical frameworks for thinking about parenthood in the genomic era.”

Murray calls for a national conversation about current and emerging technologies shaping the choices that parents have, beginning with an examination by the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

“It will not be easy to avoid the quicksand of the abortion debate,” he writes, “but it would be a great public service to provide a sober assessment of the choices that would-be parents increasingly face, and to encourage a respectful dialogue about the meaning of parenthood and the worth of a child so that parents and children can flourish together.”

Abstract of Science paper

In February 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee met to consider the possibility of future clinical trials that would test mitochondrial manipulation technologies for two purposes: to treat infertility and to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease from women to their future children. This meeting focused on scientific, technological, and clinical issues. The FDA acknowledged “ethical and social policy issues related to genetic modification of eggs and embryos” but chose not to engage with them, at least not yet (1). Good ethics begins with good facts, but the effort by the FDA to get the facts straight is just the beginning, not the end, of the conversation we must have on the wisdom of mitochondrial manipulation and other reproductive technologies that potentially provide parents with more of a say about the children they have. Preventing a lethal disease is one thing; choosing the traits we desire is quite another.

Hey, Communications is good. But so is philosophy – especially phil of science, phil of mind, existential phenomenology, etc. I took a couple of very good anthropology and sociology courses too … and one I remember in journalism about “conformity pressure.” All while majoring in EE and then educ psych. All of that and other course experiences provide a broad foundational basis for whatever it is that a person decides he or she wants to do or experience in life. (And only tangentially may help you get a job :-}

I reject the idea that different always means inferior. I have a better than average intelligence which enables me to do things to earn a bigger than average salary. Much of that comes from genetics. However, I can’t jump that high and have a smaller than average…well, since this is a moderated forum, I’ll demure. Also, science is becoming aware that so called “junk DNA” may carry important information and messing with the genome might have unintended consequences.

I don’t consider choosing the traits of any child were the choice mine to be unethical, quite the opposite in fact. I am more concerned about who gets access to these designer genes “Available to all or only to those that can afford them”.
All of our lives could be improved right now with current medical tech but it’s not available to everyone. For example, I have diminished vision in my left eye, it can be repaired with laser eye surgery but I can’t afford it.
So if a DNA scan is performed on my unborn child and reveals a less than average IQ, poor attention span and memory retention problems. Is it ethical to have my child born diminished simply because the parents couldn’t afford it.

Well put Lamplight. Eventually two who wish to have a child, may be able to choose from the best combination of traits made available by their shared genetics. It’s simply removing the cold roll-of-the-dice approach that an uncaring Nature has foisted on us through evolution. It’s hardly unethical to maximize a shared potential and it may in fact be unethical to not make the effort to avoid the worst possible combinations once these techniques become commonly available.

I think I tend to agree here. In general, there are many things I personally would not or do not recommend (a priori … no sense castigating post hoc), which nevertheless should be or are perfectly legal .. and are not and should not be freedom-restricted or even socially censored. Not much difference (yet) in choosing a good set of genes (for teeth, intelligence potential, whatever) and choosing to send your kid to a private school or a religious camp or to the Little League or Scouts, whatever … Anything like that “gives them a chance” for something – some opportunity or benefit – that they otherwise would not have .. and for a variety of reasons still many more others simply do not have. For that matter, proper nutrition is a benefit .. Should my kids not eat, because millions are starving elsewhere? Hardly. But then again, maybe they should be aware, thankful, and maybe not waste food … I don’t want to see laws or ethicists or do-gooders saying they can’t eat … Perhaps I am a bit libertarian here. (I do understand, however, the developmental effects of pressures that parents’ expectations have on children .. some of that is good and some is very bad. Unfortunately sometimes they both are called “moral training ” – and we do sure need more of the “good” kind. :-)

“Up to now, the United States has not allowed such genetic changes across generations,” Murray writes.

He’s referring to “germ line” modification. In this application this concern is ridiculous. They’re inserting mitochondria from another healthy human. It’s not like they’re putting in dog DNA or something. Nor are they doing any splicing. They’re replacing whole organelles. The whole argument is just to spread FUD.

Agree that in this instance its fear-mongering. Because in this case the entire egg, along with its mtDNA is being used whole, with the nDNA changed out in the nucleus.

But consider this: in the bad old days of the IVF in the 1980′s the sperm was just jammed into the egg, i.e. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, aka ICSI. Under these circumstances it was not uncommon for the mtDNA carried by the sperm to mix with that of the egg, AND TO BE CARRIED ON IN FUTURE GENERATIONS via the mtDNA of daughters, as a germ-line modification.

I guess what I am trying to say is “that ship has sailed.” We’ve been doing germ line modification, in some cases unintentionally, for over 30 years now. And these people are living among us, now as adults, having their own children. So its a bit late to be having a theoretical debate about it.

Choosing traits is a bit creepy though. At least at the outset perhaps there should be some limits, ie. pick traits to prevent diseases only. Then gradually allow some additional desirable traits to be allowed as long as it’s safe and we’re not creating freakish frankenbabies or vanity babies that have strange traits parents picked for fun in the same way that they might pick eccentric stylings for their car. However, will we eventually grow to love the addition of helpful traits so much that it would be viewed as akin to child abuse not to request them for your child, ie. would a short child with bad eyesight be pitied because his parents refused to request better traits? Would we view such “natural” parents in the same way that many view the Jehovah’s Witness parents who refuse to allow their injured children to receive a blood transfusion? Without wading into the pro-choice debate here, it behooves us to keep the best interests of the unborn child at the forefront of our considerations. She or he is the one who will have to live with (or without) these traits.

“Choosing traits is a bit creepy though” Tell that to parents of children with anti-social “traits” or those stuck at the bottom of their class or those who aren’t good at sports or can’t function in an advanced technological society. We do not know how to make a child “crafty” or “inclined toward science” or someone who excels in organization or planning.

This argument reminds me of the absurd clone hysteria by those who think clones have the exact likes, dislikes, goals, mental and physical abilities as the original (and inevitably segue into “clone armies”. LOL) I’ve noticed that opposition to these advancements is in direct proportion to scientific illiteracy.

There is environment and there is genetics. Parents can affect the former and soon may be able to affect the latter … and thus have some responsibility for both. I agree that “clone hysteria” is just that. And while it is true that some kinds of “scientific advancement” translated into various social cultures may not improve things much at all (either in the short or even moderately long run), I would agree that overall “opposition” seems inversely correlated with “literacy” in science and medicine and some other fields …. perhaps to a bit lessor extent, agriculture, for instance.

First, there should be multiple-generation testing on mice to be certain that such manipulation does not lead to deformed or infertile progeny.

Second, I’m one to be in favor of this, but will wait to use it until science knows which genes lead to what outcomes. For example, I’d love to have red haired or strawberry blonde daughters, and frankly their aren’t enough redhead women to go around. Adding this trait, given what we know about dogs ( http://singularityhub.com/2009/09/04/dog-hair-is-defined-by-just-three-genes/ ), might be easy, but it might not be easy to add the whole redhead package (fair skin, light eyes, the smell and taste, the fiery temperament). On the other hand, I know a young lady who has the highest capacity for divinity/spirituality I’ve ever met. Because of age differences, it is impractical to have kids with her. It may be a long time before science identifies the genes that created that, or it might be some non-genetic nurture issue.

Never the less, since my awesome children are the principal focus and joy of my life, and until social norms and life expectancy change to make it acceptable to have several kids with several different women, this technology seems to offer a way to preserve and improve future generations, sculpting the future of our species.

I like your idea best of all…though I’m small and dark from my French Canadian side, the Vikings did spend some time in Normandy. Maybe deep down I have the genes to be Dolph Lundgren after all.

But before too long, this will all be moot.

Come the Singularity, we’ll all be shape shifters, able to wake up as a different person every morning. (We’ll need RF ID chips, but even then, identity theft will be an even bigger problem than it is today.)

Oh, and thanks for the link about dog hair, tschaefer. Now that the US National Human Genome Research Institute has published this, maybe somebody else will pick up the ball for dog genes and run with it.

Just 12 months ago, we had a happy family of three German shepherds. Then last March, eight-year-old Ruby died suddenly of a twisted stomach. A few months later, seven-year-old Franz started showing hip dysplaesia. A few months after that he started having epileptic seizures. By November he was suffering so that he had to be put to sleep.

Somebody has got to find those bad genes that have come up from the very first German shepherd and fix them, even if it changes the dog in a few small ways. (I just hope the epilepsy was not from the same genes that made Franz so smart.)

Lamplight: I respond in the positive on your general principle, but you’re a little to vehement in your sell. Not everyone may want a replica of Dolfe Lundgren for a baby. There are people out there that could turn this whole genetic supermarket future into a circus, human nature being what it is. I think it is notable that many of the people who claim contact by beings from the future, describe them as tall, fair and looking all the same…including their coveralls. So tall dark and handsome may be taking a back seat to tall blonde and….you get the idea. Sooner or later, the prominent choice would be the norm and there would be little genetic variation. It is genetic variation that drives evolution and produces strong, adaptable humans. I think we do need a world wide think tank on this subject and the sooner the better.

I guess you don’t follow “fads” do you? I recommend you look up the prevalence of various first names at Wolfram Alpha. Popular traits will come and go among the unwashed masses, manipulated by the popular culture and powers that be. What is more important is the thoughtful use by those who wish to improve the arc of history, in a variety of synergistic ways.

I’ve had asthma since infancy. I don’t have a memory in my head where I wasn’t worried about taking my next breath…I was always the smallest and weakest in any class in any grade while growing up, always the one that was bullied while everyone else stood around in a circle laughing and then walking off clapping the tough guy on his back and telling him what a great guy he was.

If it were at all possible to give me a life where I was healthy and tall and strong and appealing to the girls, it would certainly be unethical to force me to live the life that I’ve already had.

According to the “Church of the Singularity” the Government and Religion have no business legislating what parents can or cannot do in helping to shape their child. Designer babies have been shaped since the beginning of time with individuals choosing sex partners because of traits of beauty, health, brains and brawn.
Science should not, cannot and will not be ignored when allowing parents to give their offspring the best advantages for a healthy, happy and successful life. The pursuit of happiness is fundamental to every American and to pretend that “choosing the traits we desire” could be an ethical violation is absurd. Who has the right to tell someone else that they can’t have a boy or a girl, or enhance the intelligence, height, eye color or musculature of their child using the science available? I certainly don’t and neither do you.

well I believe that the main concern for people who are against chosing traits is that they will one day become genetically inferior to other people. “we believe that all men are created equal.” but what if all men are not equal? after all: if it would be possible to choose traits you too would be genetically inferior compared to others right?

I don’t think that the basis for the strong and noble belief that “all are created equal” has much to do with genetics or environment or education or life condition, etc. I think this is more of an ontological rather than an ontic proposition, having more to do with the nature of being … Dasein, I think, Martin Heidegger called it; Thou rather than It, Martin Buber called this.